he downgraded everyones knowledge to a point where they had no wisdom and that they were in fact too arrogant to see the faults in their society but instead of helping athens in a way that would actually be beneficial he simply found a way to piss people off and at the same time think about everything they've come to known. He was an asshole, but a good asshole.... he was a tight asshole.

His point was that people who thought they were wise were incorrect, as those who are truly wise knew that there was always more to know in any given subject. People were upset over this paradoxical "being wise is being aware of your ignorance" because they took it as a direct insult to their intelligence.
And as for "simply pissing them off" he was trying to help Athens by making them question their states superiority complex. This was after the first Peloponnesian War when Athens thought it was their mission to forcefully unite the Hellenic people's under their increasingly tyrannical rule. Socrates was trying to drag Athens off its pedestal of "We're more powerful and wise than you" and improve their sense of morality and justice.

yeah.. I dont know man philosophy was like... my 1st semester class I dont remember **** . All I know is reading Plato's Apology made me angry and at the same time made me think that I won't ever be good enough. I respect him for his way of thinking, that there is always more to learn which is true but he just came off as such a douchebag...

He's wasn't a blatant asshole in the sense of running around and being a dick and insulting people and **** . All we know about his is what Plato wrote. He was just a smart ass who asked people questions they didn't have answers too, and they'd get annoyed, because he was basically destroying people illusions by showing them that they don't know what they claimed to know. The people around him who claimed they had a right to their moral authority we just ************ everyone, and they used their authority to put him to death (not a very moral thing, but that was just Socrates' point, that they had no objective moral authority). At least that's my take on him.

Socrates was the guy who questioned the "might makes right" dogma of Athens at the time, and attempted to improve their sense of justice. Thusly he was accused of "Corrupting the youth of Athens" as well as not believing in the state religion and sentanced to drink a cup of poison.

No, you're thinking of Socrates. He was known as the "gadfly of Athens," which is a really nice way of saying "asshole." We use the really nice way of saying it because we have come to see him as a major contributor to the way we think, even this many thousands of years later.

Hold on a second. Which one was the one who made ridiculous claims about science and basically ****** science over for a while because their opinion was held in high regard even though in reality they didn't know the first thing about science?

Well, they existed during the Bronze Age, so none of 'em were gonna get much about science correct.

"The one who made ridiculous claims about science and basically ****** science over for a while" describes just about every human before 1850 and about 70% of all humans ever since. I really have no idea who you might be referring to based on what you wrote.

I do know that I have a rather lower opinion of Plato than I do of Socrates or Aristotle, so I'll just assume you mean Plato.

I do not think it's Plato, it could be but I do not think it is, anyway one of those 3 philosophers took the completely wrong stance on a scientific issue because it was the easy stance even though it had no evidence to back it up while the other side had some evidence. By taking that stance the philosopher basically set science back a while because everyone believed him and the other side was basically told to **** off.

It was Artistotle... He had some correct theories about Physics but he also said some really wacky things, like an arrow maintains its velocity after its fired because the air behind it pushes it along.

Emoji is the Japanese term for the ideograms or smileys used in Japanese electronic messages and webpages, and which are spreading outside Japan.

Although originally only available in Japan, some emoji character sets have been incorporated into Unicode, allowing them to be used elsewhere as well. As a result, some phones such as Windows Phone 7 line and the iPhone allow access to the symbols without requiring a Japanese carrier.

Not quite. I dont believe im above society, and if I hated popular things just because theyre popular, I wouldnt have an Iphone myself, and Im still standing by my statement. Why use a japanese term for something that has an english term when you're communicating in english? I honestly dont give a **** about the app, but when people start calling every single ******* emoticon emojis, thats when my panties take a quantum shift. Take a look at freakyorange up above and ****** #8 down there, theyre ******* calling these emoticons emojis.

I guess they think Emoji sounds cool or fun? People love Japanese crap. Either way you look at it they're still smiley faces. You shouldn't get so worked up over such trivial things. But hey it's the internet, people will write an essay proposing their love for MLP. Anything goes.

Im aware of that, I just dont get why the dev decided to try to be original and try to give a name to something that already has a name. Its like if someone made a cheesy knife called a nifee, then all of a sudden everyone starts calling knives nifees.

My cousin's husband walked out on her and their three kids yesterday for another woman. Two of the kids are mildly special needs. They never fought, and I always thought they were happy. This post makes me sad.. No amount of comedic quotes can undo this..

Once you decide to become a mother/ father it's not all about you anymore. When he left he didn't just leave the mother heartbroken, but he broke the children's hearts too. And he didn't just leave, he had an affair first (assuming this since he had another woman lined up) then left.

Yeah, and sometimes people think that they can handle that, and then they can't. I'm not saying that he did a good thing, just that it's what he did and it wouldn't be right to call him out as a bad person just because of that.

Have you ever been working on a group project in school with someone you don't get along with? Or where you know it's not gonna work if you try to split it up equally? And then someone gets stuck doing all the work? It's like that, but more serious.

See comment #51 for my reasoning behind it being a potentially more helpful decision for their futures. It's why people get divorced, because they don't want to be with someone. Better to have a functional one parent or step-family than to have a dysfunctional nuclear one.

I just can't justify leaving your wife and kids (dropping your responsibilities because being an adult is hard) for someone else. I could maybe see if he wanted custody of his kids and just didn't love the wife, but it's not the children's fault they were born that way. The kids also didn't ask to be born, so before they brought them into this world they should have been 1000% sure they could raise them.

Again, I'm not saying it was a good decision, or the right decision, just you can't demonize people who do this kind of thing because they can't handle their own life. Some people just think they can handle it but then they realize they can't and it's just one of those things that happens in life. Not everything is black and white, not every antagonist is a bad guy.

Then again, maybe he is and this is just another bad thing he's done. I'm just really saying to people in general to not judge people based on a bad thing they've done. You have to know their intentions and such.

I know because I've been in that situation (not on this scale) and it does suck to be that guy but the last thing you want is for people to hate you because of it. Everyone needs to be accepted and all I'm saying is if he told his story to me, I wouldn't hate him for that.

Yeah, because I've made bad decisions and been in similar situations and I know I'm not a bad person.

Saying someone's a terrible person because they've done a bad thing is flawed reasoning. Yeah it sucks for the wife but, we don't know how the husband felt.
Look at it this way? Is it better for the wife to raise three kids with a dad who doesn't wanna be there and whose heart isn't in it or to have a chance at finding someone who loves her at this point in her life and is willing to carry that burden?

I read from somewhere that a marriage has several stages.
1. You love each other and but you can deal with living without each other
2. You love each other but you can't live without your partner
3. You don't really love each other but you can't live without your partner
4. You don't love each other at all and you can't live without your partner due to finances but ehh **** it you're in a relationship and you're stuck with it.

The problem is that nowadays marriage has become the objective and not the road. Thanks to the romanticism, love is completed with marriage. No one writes or talks about what happened after marriage because it is, under this perspective, unimportant. Therefore, marriage is no longer the next step on a relationship, but the end of it.

No, people should change their thoughts on marriage. That's all. I am pro-divorce. Why should anyone stay married to someone they don't love anymore? The thing is that some people get married without being really prepared.